English translation — שיחת ש"פ וירא, כ"ף מרחשון ה'תשמ"ו

A*.

Regarding "Keter" (Crown) in the language of Targum,

clarification of the seventy languages:

It is known that the matter of translation reaches down to the lowest level, even to the nations of the world,

and to such an extent that the day the elders wrote the Torah in Greek was "as difficult for Israel as the day the Golden Calf was made"

(the opposite of the Giving of the Torah) –

Nevertheless,

after the Torah was actually translated,

through this an elevation comes,

that it also reaches down to the lowest level,

to the nations of the world

[because this concerns the translation of the Written Torah,

which the nations of the world are permitted to study,

not like the Oral Torah where there is the prohibition of "a gentile who engages in Torah"].

For example, the Targum of Onkelos,

and likewise the Greek translation,

and likewise all translations of the Torah,

until the translation of the Torah of Chassidus by His Holiness, my father-in-law, the Rebbe,

which comes as an addition to the translation of Moses "explain it well –

in seventy languages",

and the Targum of Onkelos, etc.

[In note 73 –

regarding the matter that the work of the earth by Israel is in the manner of "one who believes in the Eternal Life and sows" –

that in nature itself they recognize Divinity that is above nature:]

The matter of "one who believes in the Eternal Life and sows" is indeed a wondrous thing:

It is known that the Holy One, blessed be He, established two conducts in the world –

the conduct of nature,

in the manner of "they shall not cease",

which derives from "I, the Lord, have not changed",

and the miraculous conduct,

a novelty.

A stormy question arises:

Even if a Jew were to sow because in the natural way it will sprout –

this is also because the Holy One, blessed be He, created the nature of the world this way,

as is obvious to every intelligent person that nothing makes itself,

but certainly the Holy One, blessed be He, created it,

only regarding the conduct of nature, the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted that this should be clothed in a natural way in the manner of "they shall not cease",

but this is also from the Holy One, blessed be He.

And especially according to the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov,

that the creation of the world is renewed every single moment,

consequently it follows that also the conduct of nature in the manner of "they shall not cease" is renewed anew every single moment by the Holy One, blessed be He;

Now why must it be "one who believes in the Eternal Life and sows",

not because this is the way of nature,

but from the aspect of faith in "the Eternal Life"?!

That is, when one asks someone –

how do you throw a seed into the ground where the seed rots,

it is seemingly contrary to reason to ruin "the work of your hands" –

a person can answer in two ways:

A) He does it because this is the way of nature and the custom of the world "seed and harvest etc. shall not cease",

as he saw by his father and grandfathers and people around –

that when one sows a seed in the ground etc.,

something grows from it. And since "He did not create it for chaos –

He formed it to be inhabited",

therefore he plows and sows and reaps,

in order to have bread to eat etc.

A Jew, however, answers in a second way:

B) "One who believes in the Eternal Life and sows" –

he does it not because this is the way of nature,

but because he "believes in the Eternal Life" that He will make it grow!

And a Jew answers this not in a manner of novelty –

but simply:

"One who believes in the Eternal Life and sows" is not stated in the language of novelty –

but simply.

And not specifically regarding exceptional individuals,

but regarding "one who sows",

which is specifically among farmers,

and the Gemara indeed says that farmers "do not do the will of the Omnipresent"

(unlike Torah scholars who "do the will of the Omnipresent") –

nevertheless, among them is the order of "one who believes in the Eternal Life and sows"!

And as is also emphasized

(that this does not specifically concern exceptional individuals)

from the place in the Torah where it says "one who believes in the Eternal Life and sows":

This is not stated in Tractate Avot,

"matters of piety",

and there itself –

for Baal Shem Tov Jews,

but this is stated in Tractate Berachot regarding the order of the six orders,

which begin with Order Zera'im,

which "the faith of your times –

this is Order Zera'im",

"that one believes in the Eternal Life and sows".

That is, that this concerns

(also)

such Jews who are only at the beginning of the Torah,

the beginning of the Talmud,

starting from Order Zera'im,

and in this itself –

Tractate Berachot

(the first tractate in Order Zera'im),

nevertheless, it is simply placed within them –

they need not ask anyone,

they need not come to "acquire for yourself a teacher" –

that "one who believes in the Eternal Life and sows"!

Why a Jew is by nature a believer in G-d,

he does not need to arrive at this through service or knowledge of Torah etc.,

but immediately at the beginning of his service he is a believer in G-d –

"believes in the Eternal Life and sows". As emphasized in that which 'believes in the Eternal Life and sows':

he holds of "sows",

the beginning of service

(and in Torah –

Order of Seeds –

the beginning of the Talmud) –

nevertheless he is "believes in the Eternal Life and sows".

As also explained the reason why the Talmud begins with Order of Seeds,

and in this itself with tractate Berachot –

because "the beginning of wisdom is fear of the L-rd",

which is the content of Order of Seeds in general

("believes in the Eternal Life and sows"),

and tractate Berachot in particular –

blessings to the Holy One, blessed be He,

and the beginning of tractate Berachot in the most particular –

regarding the reading of Shema

("From when may one recite the Shema etc."),

"Hear O Israel, the L-rd our G-d, the L-rd is One",

the matter of fear of the L-rd and faith in G-d etc.

That is to say that in addition to the elevation in general of "by the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread",

"to inhabit it He formed it",

which effects the rectification of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge

[although this came as a punishment for the sin of the Tree of Knowledge –

it is known that all punishments of the Torah are in order to rectify and effect an elevation and a greater reward –

the rectification of the world –

this is all an elevation from the natural order;

However, by a Jew there comes an additional elevation,

that in addition to the rectification of the world,

there is also drawn into nature a quality of Divinity that is above nature –

because he is "believes in the Eternal Life and sows",

in this "sows"

(the natural way)

and "worlds" he perceives and believes "in the Eternal Life",

as the growth comes from the aspect of Divinity that is above nature.

And after this entire elevation of the work of the land during "six years you shall sow your field etc." –

there comes an even higher elevation in the Sabbatical year,

"and in the seventh year a complete rest shall be for the land, a Sabbath for the L-rd; your field you shall not sow etc." –

because then the drawing forth is effected not at all through a garment of the natural way,

but through

(utilizing the free time in the Sabbatical year)

for "to seek the L-rd",

the study of Torah and the service of prayer etc.

And just as in the six years there was "the labor of your hands"

[and known is the precision in this:

"the labor of your hands" specifically,

but the head is involved in other matters],

"by the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread" –

so he transforms this in the Sabbatical year into toil in the study of Torah and service of G-d.

And just as in the six years there is drawn forth through the toil in the work of the land material influences and sustenance

(bread etc.),

and in great abundance,

as our Sages said, does a person sow a kav only to bring in many kor –

so it is effected in the Sabbatical year through the study of Torah etc.,

as it is written "and I will command My blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall produce produce for the three years".

[Regarding the Nasi of Israel,

that the Nasi is everything,

and from him it is drawn forth to all of his generation –

he added:]

And analogously to "there is no king without a people",

so too regarding a Nasi,

as emphasized in his name "Nasi",

which indicates that there are those over whom he is a Nasi;

when one calls someone "Nasi" –

immediately the question arises:

where are those over whom you are a Nasi? He may have all virtues –

but if he does not have those over whom he is a Nasi,

one may call him with all titles,

but not with the title "Nasi"!

[Conclusion of the talk:]

The redemption comes after the Sabbatical year,

when then one will automatically be free for the mitzvah of "gather the people, the men, the women, and the infants",

also the very young,

in our holy land,

in Jerusalem the holy city,

on the holy mountain,

in the holy house,

the third Holy Temple,

where there is the Holy of Holies,

"with our youths and with our elders etc. with our sons and with our daughters",

and their silver and their gold with them,

their spiritual silver and gold,

love and fear,

which includes the entire Torah and its commandments,

all the more so their material silver and gold,

and out of joy and goodness of heart,

and joy breaks boundaries,

also the boundary of time,

consequently all this will be in one moment and in an instant,

truly speedily in our days.

[On the great necessity regarding the matter of education,

especially that the opposing side strives in all manner of ways to snatch the youth, G-d forbid,

as was regarding the children of Tehran and the children of Yemen:]

Which is a thing unprecedented in its opposition to justice and righteousness –

that one should drag children away from their parents,

with all kinds of lies,

even by convincing the parents that the children were missing, G-d forbid,

and then raising the children according to what arose in their spirit,

as is known and publicized.

And to such an extent is the panic in the matter –

then among those who were demolished at the head,

there was a Jew, a guardian of Torah and mitzvos in his private life,

who lays tefillin and prays three times a day!

And when they argued in the demolition that it is, after all, contrary to justice and fairness,

and you are, after all, a man of righteousness –

he answered,

that just as they were saved,

consequently one may do as they see fit,

for they are young Canaanite slaves,

and even worse than that –

they are like their property

(possessions),

and if one wishes, one may burn them,

may G-d protect us,

if not burn the body –

burn the soul,

may G-d protect us!

And this is not the place to elaborate on the alarming and distressing matter.

But one should not delude oneself that this is a matter of the past,

and a calamity will not occur twice,

rather this is a thing that continues until this very day:

until this very day,

for already thirty, forty years,

they have not publicized and have not taken [action] in the places where the children arrived!...

And no one opens a mouth or chirps...

There are lists and books where the names of the children are recorded and where they arrived –

consequently one can clarify there and seek out the people.

And those who mock this –

let them mock,

and they will accomplish what one accomplishes through mockery,

and above all –

that one becomes from the 'sects'!...

Therefore one should have nothing to do with them,

as King David utterly rejects at the beginning of the Book of Psalms the sitting in the seat of the scornful –

"Fortunate is the man who did not walk in the counsel of the wicked... and in the seat of the scornful he did not sit."

And although it is already about forty years since the children were captured,

others may argue that what will it help if we find them –

but one may not despair of any Jew! Who then can be the decider and arbiter that one must despair of a Jew,

whoever he may be?!

There is a thing that only the Almighty knows...

True indeed,

it is a difficult task to find the people and speak with them etc. –

but this is an absolute necessity.

Consequently it is understood that until this very day there is still the possibility to find and locate the people and speak with them –

and as long as it is not done, the iniquity that was committed years ago when they were captured continues.

The guilty one himself can repent regarding himself –

that is between him and the Holy One, blessed be He;

but regarding the practical,

in order to rectify what was done to children,

one must find them etc.

And regarding this, those who can do nothing at all concerning the Yemenite children etc. –

can and must exert effort in the matter of education in their environment:

Everyone comes into contact with children,

consequently he can exert himself regarding their education,

both to improve the education of children who already receive a Jewish education,

and all the more so regarding Jewish children who do not receive a Jewish education,

and know nothing at all of the aleph-beis,

and to such an extent that even their parents know nothing about Judaism,

or about the fact that Judaism has relevance to them,

and "that is our life and the length of our days",

consequently they do not feel compelled to give their children a Jewish education,

To the point that there are parents who think that they are masters over their children and can do with the children as they see fit,

if they want to give the child a Jewish education –

they will do it,

and if not –

they will not do it, G-d forbid!

And we have already seen the results of such an approach...

Therefore, upon every person lies a duty, responsibility, and merit to influence parents and children in his environment regarding the great necessity of learning about Judaism and receiving a Jewish education.

And in particular,

as mentioned,

that it is not merely a situation of abandonment

(neither here nor there),

rather the opposing side is awake and seeks every possible way to capture the children and lead them to idolatry, G-d forbid.

This further increases the necessity to reach as many Jewish children as possible and give them an education in Judaism.

And meanwhile not to hesitate and not to reckon with any accounts,

neither with accounts of money nor of trouble etc.

(as above) –

because this concerns saving lives

(in spirituality)

of Jewish children,

for saving a life overrides the entire Torah!

A fire is burning –

one does not reckon with any matters,

and one does everything possible to save those who can be harmed by the fire!

As one sees simply:

When someone sees that a fire is burning, G-d forbid,

even if it is not burning in his own property,

but in the house of a stranger –

he goes and knocks on the window of that stranger's house,

in order to wake them up and warn them that they should flee from there. And to such an extent,

that even if they do not respond to his knocking –

he knocks again,

in case there is someone there who needs to be saved!

Thus must be the approach to education,

and especially in our generation –

when a fire is burning that endangers Jewish children,

both sons,

both in knowledge

(even though he or she has white hair on the head),

both in knowledge of what is necessary regarding practical matters.

And one need not bring proofs that a fire is burning –

everyone knows it from reading the newspapers.

Parenthetical remark:

It has become a habitual shell for almost everyone –

that one must read a newspaper every single day. Others –

need to read it from beginning to end,

and others –

only a part of it;

but a day cannot pass

(in his opinion)

without him reading the newspaper!

Even if one will say that there is something there that pertains to him –

this is understandable regarding his taxes,

or a matter concerning his neighborhood and city;

but what does it matter to him what is happening in the Far East or the Near East,

how two gentiles are fighting etc.!

Reading about this is a waste of time,

a waste of attention,

and without any benefit whatsoever –

because he cannot do anything about it anyway!

But what then –

he cannot bear to sit among people who talk about what is in the newspapers,

and he remains ignorant among the knowledgeable,

and does not know what they are talking about and cannot join in –

therefore he must read the newspaper!

They give you better advice:

Speak with them about a topic in Torah –

they will feel how ignorant they are in knowledge of Torah!

And in this matter of education –

there is a special empowerment from the year of Shemittah,

in which the matter of education is emphasized –

a change of habit –

from a state of working the land to a state of resting the land,

and in its place –

study of Torah and the service of prayer.

And as discussed above from the commentators on the Torah regarding the year of Shemittah,

that "also the workers of the land, when they rest in that year, will be aroused to seek G-d." And as explained that "all the years, when the Nesi'im conclude, they cannot be in their work in an orderly fashion because they are busy plowing and sowing etc.,

but in the seventh year their work was like that of the Sanhedrin etc."

And one may add,

that the aforementioned lesson from the year of Shemittah applies

(not only to businessmen, but)

also to rabbis

(like the Sanhedrin):

Even a ordained rabbi who spends most of the day

(in all years,

not only in the year of Shemittah)

in Torah study,

and especially in the laws that are commonly studied –

cannot be satisfied with the Torah knowledge he had at the time he received ordination in previous years,

but he must constantly refresh his knowledge

(so that he should not forget it),

and moreover –

he has an obligation

(like every Jew)

to constantly add in Torah study,

until in a manner of "to delve into it",

to innovate in Torah.

And especially if the rabbi received ordination only in a specific part of the Shulchan Aruch,

for example –

Yoreh Deah part one,

as is customary in many places,

whether one is satisfied with this or not,

but such is the reality –

he must certainly add in studying the parts of Shulchan Aruch that he has not yet studied completely:

It is not enough that he studied Yoreh Deah part one,

or part Orach Chaim,

the laws of Kriat Shema,

the laws of Shemoneh Esrei etc. –

in order for him to be able to rule on a question in...

a law in Yoreh Deah part two,

in the laws of Yayin Nesech,

the laws of Mikvaot,

the laws of Nedarim etc.

(the multitude of sections in Yoreh Deah part two,

more than in part one)!

Furthermore:

One must take time –

and especially in the latter generations –

new questions in halachah become renewed that were not before. For this, the Torah knowledge that the rabbi decisor had until now is not sufficient,

rather it is an absolute necessity,

that he should delve and be innovative in Torah and Shulchan Aruch,

and also inquire of an expert in that matter,

in order to be able to rule on the new question.

It is understood from this,

that even a rabbi who lies all the years entirely in Torah study –

must from time to time change from his routine

(the matter of education),

even a routine of good and holiness

(Torah study),

and add in this –

both regarding the parts of Shulchan Aruch that he has not yet learned in completeness,

and both regarding the new questions that come from time to time.

And it is understood and simple,

that it is entirely insufficient that a rabbi rely that if he will have a question in an area that he has not learned –

he will call his colleague a rabbi and ask him!...

This is not the way of a rabbi,

a rabbi must himself learn Shulchan Aruch and himself know how to rule on a question. In the absence of choice –

he may ask another rabbi,

but not ab initio!

And in this –

that a rabbi must change from his routine and add in his Torah study –

there is no matter of shame and opposite the honor of the rabbinate,

it is not even in the category of "he confessed and was not ashamed". Because there is no shame in this that when a new question comes –

a rabbi cannot rule on the question according to his knowledge from before,

rather he must delve and learn anew.

And on the contrary:

Specifically in this consists the honor of the rabbinate that when one asks him a question that he does not know,

he should say that he does not know and he needs to delve in the books that speak about this,

and then return tomorrow

(or in a few days)

and he will rule. Because if the rabbi will rule on the question thinking that it is opposite the honor of the rabbinate and the honor of the Torah that he should say that he does not know,

then he rules as it comes out to him –

and they will afterwards ask him straightforwardly "from what reason did you judge me" –

he will not have what to answer

(aside from the answer that one covers oneself with the honor of the Torah),

then from this will come a much greater shame.

And it is understood that his claim will not help,

that it is opposite the honor of the rabbinate that they ask him "from where did you judge me" –

because ultimately "truth will spring forth from the earth",

and it will become known that he did not rule correctly –

then through asking him quietly "from what reason did you judge me",

he should be satisfied because through this they do him a favor and they prevent for him the shame that someone should proclaim this from the platform and in the public domain,

and those who are opposite his lover should exploit it against him!

And from all this it is understood that also by rabbis there must be the matter of change of routine

(the matter of education),

through addition in Torah study.

And for this there is the instruction of the year of shemittah also for rabbis:

When a year of shemittah comes –

every rabbi has the capacity and merit to utilize the time to further add and be innovative in Torah study and Shulchan Aruch,

and especially –

in the new areas where there were no questions in the years before this.

The matter of change of routine

(education),

emphasized in the year of shemittah –

is even easier to effect among those who change their routine anyway and go away from the usual place,

from under his vine and under his fig tree,

"travel of a man" and "travel of a woman".

And especially since they are

(away from their place and)

come to the "place where Torah is magnified" and "place where prayer is magnified" of His Holiness, our master and father-in-law, the Rebbe, the prince of our generation.

And they are told –

or they understand themselves –

that this is in order that a new knowledge should come to them and they should hear a new proposal –

it is understood that among them it is much easier to effect the matter of change of routine in their service,

so that they should also continue this when returning to their home and usual place.

Therefore they receive a thank you,

and especially when they will also participate by saying "L'chaim" and "L'chaim and blessing". And especially by showing a living example.

And may it be His will that through taking good resolutions in all these matters –

this will already bring the reward,

and especially when one immediately makes a beginning in a matter of actual deed.

And especially those who actually fulfill the commandment of Shemittah even during the time of exile –

whose portion is fortunate, and those who help them, etc.

Until this will bring the main reward –

the true and complete redemption,

which comes through the fulfillment of the commandment of Shemittah,

as it is brought in the Midrash on the verse "You have been favorable, O Lord, to Your land; You have returned the captivity of Jacob" –

"You have been favorable, O Lord, to Your land,

this is that the land which the Lord your God cares for,

the Holy One, blessed be He, turns and overturns and looks and sets His eyes upon it until it pleases the deeds to the Holy One, blessed be He...

Observe the Shemittah years...

At that time it pleases the deeds to the Holy One, blessed be He...

Therefore, 'You have been favorable, O Lord, to Your land.'"

Then

(in the future redemption)

one will fulfill the commandment of Shemittah

(and all commandments)

with the ultimate perfection –

"according to the commandment of Your will,"

speedily in our days, literally,

and in our time.

Discourse (like a talk)

beginning with "And he planted an eshel in Beersheba."

It is also customary to study a verse from the weekly portion together with the commentary of Rashi.

And according to the request, matters that are not understood in Rashi were proposed.

But...

as usual,

one stops only at the simplest matters,

which everyone grasps simply according to what is discussed in Rashi elsewhere –

but one stops there and does not think further into the matter.

And after speaking about this many times,

more than five years,

one hopes that with time a change will be effected. And Torah will surely ultimately accomplish,

that it should be "explained clearly"!

In this week's portion, one stopped at the fact that Rashi quotes from the verse the words "And Lot sat in the gate of Sodom" and explains:

"'Sat' is written defectively,

on that day they appointed him a judge over them." And the usual question was asked:

Since Rashi explains only the word "sat" –

why does he also quote from the verse the words "in the gate of Sodom"?

And there one stopped.

What would be lacking if one would think a little and grasp that Rashi explains this in a second place,

and not just anywhere,

but in the same book in the portion after this –

the portion of Chayei Sarah –

on the verse "And Ephron sat among the children of Heth",

and Rashi explains "'Sat' is written defectively,

on that day they appointed him an officer over them, etc."

And this is not merely an example of what Rashi explains in our portion

(on "And Lot sat"),

but rather this strengthens the aforementioned question why Rashi also quotes "in the gate of Sodom":

For one could possibly say that the quotation of the Scriptural text in the beginning discourse is not so precise;

but when one sees that in the portion of Chayei Sarah,

on a matter seemingly similar to this,

Rashi quotes only the words "And Ephron sat"

(because he comes to explain only those words),

whereas in our portion he quotes "And Lot sat in the gate of Sodom"

(even though he also explains only "sat") –

one sees the precision in the matter,

consequently this strengthens the aforementioned question.

Additionally, another question arises when one compares our Rashi with the Rashi in the portion of Chayei Sarah:

Here Rashi explains "on that day they appointed him a judge over them",

whereas by "And Ephron sat" he explains "on that day they appointed him an officer over them, etc." From whichever angle:

In both places it says "sat" defectively. It should have taught in both places the same thing,

that "on that day they appointed him a judge" or in both places "an officer" –

from where does Rashi take to differentiate,

that Lot was appointed a judge,

and Ephron an officer?!

And as will be explained below.

Another matter in Rashi in our portion that has a connection to the matter of "Chabad House",

as follows:

On the verse "And he planted an eshel" –

which was also reviewed earlier in the discourse –

Rashi explains:

"Rav and Shmuel: one said an orchard to bring from it fruits for the guests at the meal,

and one said an inn for lodging, and in it all kinds of fruits,

and we find the expression of planting in connection with tents, as it is said 'and he planted the tent of his palace.'"

One has already spoken about this Rashi,

and spoken about the well-known precision why Rashi writes the explanation in the name of the sayers,

Rav and Shmuel –

but one did not speak about the primary question in the matter:

What is lacking in the plain meaning of the verse that Rashi needs to give an explanation here at all? "And he planted an eshel" means simply,

that he planted a tree.

Even if one will say that Rashi needs to explain "eshel" –

he should have explained it simply – a tree,

as Rashi knows from elsewhere in Scripture that "eshel" means a tree. And one does not need for this any expertise or effort –

one only needs to open a concordance and look under the word "eshel",

one will see that it appears another two times in the book of Samuel,

once "and Saul was sitting in Gibeah under the eshel" where the simple explanation is that it is under the tree –

not under an "orchard";

and regarding this the second time at the end of I Samuel concerning the burial of Saul:

"and they buried under the eshel in Yavesh". Where there one must interpret that it means a tree. And one cannot interpret that it means "orchard" or "inn",

because a grave is according to the measure of a person,

three cubits,

four cubits,

but it is not fitting to say "and they buried under" the orchard or under the inn!

Now since "I found him a companion" is in the Written Torah,

at the end of I Samuel,

that "eshel" means a tree –

why does Rashi not bring it,

and instead Rashi brings specifically an explanation from the Oral Torah,

from Rav and Shmuel!

Rashi teaches with a five year old for Scripture –

he should have brought the simple explanation from Scripture of "eshel" – a tree,

as it is at the end of I Samuel. And even though the five year old has not yet learned it –

but Rashi has learned it. And as we see that Rashi brings in his commentary on the Chumash from verses in the Prophets and Writings.

And as will be explained below.

When a dispute arose over a farbrengen on Shabbat –

I immediately thought to find a connection of the current Torah portion with the two matters in which one is currently involved:

Chabad houses,

and "make for yourself a rav".

Because even though one has already spoken about this many times and with a storm etc. –

it is to be hoped that after all the talk about this it will accomplish even half or less of what one desires.

Let each one go ask the one who is near him,

whether he has made a "rav" and whether he speaks with him and obeys him.

I do not want to be the one who embarrasses someone who stands opposite me

[the Rebbe shlita pointed to someone opposite him]

and ask him:

Young man,

what is the name of your "rav",

and how many times have you spoken with him in the last months?!

Everyone can claim:

Why do you ask me,

ask those who sit near you! Jews who have white beards and sit at the head,

and since they sit there –

it is ostensibly a proof that they are worthy to sit there!

I have nothing to ask them –

because I am certain that they have not appointed for themselves a "rav",

and even if yes –

it is only to fulfill the obligation,

and one does not speak with the rav,

and even if one speaks with him –

it remains only in saying and specifically that one obeys him,

even if he gives such advice to do...

Someone who read about the proposal of "make for yourself a rav" –

wrote to me in a letter,

that it is logical to say that the entire matter of "make for yourself a rav" is primarily for those who do not obey and need to come to this,

because those who do not need to

(so)

come to this because they conduct themselves properly –

have already fulfilled it;

specifically those who need to come to this –

specifically they have

(will)

not fulfill it!

And so it was!

And just as this is regarding the proposal of "make for yourself a rav",

so it is also regarding other matters,

including –

that which was spoken that in the year of Shemittah each one must increase in fixed times for Torah:

let one ask the one who sits near him –

how much time has he added in Torah study since Rosh Hashanah

(Rosh Hashanah of Shemittah),

fifty days before this.

To which one has, incidentally,

also not paid attention,

that the twentieth of Cheshvan is always fifty days after Rosh Hashanah.

And on that day of the fixing of Rosh Hashanah

(because Tishrei is always full) –

which fifty days correspond to the gate of the nun,

the aspect of Keter.

(The Rebbe shlita smiled,

and said:)

About this one can perhaps have no complaints,

because one has never spoken about this;

unlike regarding the matters about which one has spoken and one does not fulfill them.

The hint in our Torah portion regarding the two matters of "Chabad house" and "make for yourself a rav":

A) "And he planted an eshel –

an inn for lodging –

in Beersheba, and there he called in the name of the L-rd, the G-d of the world",

"through that eshel the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, was called G-d of the entire world,

after they ate and drank, he said to them: Bless the One of Whose you have eaten. And this is the concept of "Beit Chabad":

an inn for lodging,

where every Jew can enter and stay overnight and receive something to eat and drink

(and this includes –

studying Torah,

praying and giving charity, and the like.

And through this "eshel" it becomes "and there he called in the name of the L-rd, the G-d of the world".

And since the Torah tells about the conduct of our father Abraham

(that "he planted an eshel"),

it is understood that this is an instruction for all generations for everyone.

This is understood from the very fact that the Torah tells specifically about this:

Our father Abraham lived one hundred and seventy-five years. When one combines all the events that are told in the Torah about the life of Abraham –

it will take up altogether a few days,

not years,

but days! The question arises:

In the one hundred and seventy-five years of Abraham's life, certainly incomparably more events occurred than are told in the Torah –

why does the Torah tell only these few events? The explanation of this is –

because the Torah tells only the events that have a lesson and instruction for all Jews.

Therefore it is understandable,

that since the Torah tells about "and he planted an eshel",

there is from this a lesson and instruction for each and every one.

And the instruction is –

that everyone must establish a "Beit Chabad",

an "inn for lodging",

where everyone can have something to eat,

drink and stay overnight,

and this includes –

the study of Torah,

prayer and the fulfillment of the commandments.

And in such a manner –

that through this it should become (as it was with Abraham) "and there he called in the name of the L-rd, the G-d of the world",

"do not read 'he called' but rather 'he caused others to call',

this teaches that our father Abraham caused the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, to be uttered by the mouth of every passerby, etc.",

that "he taught the creatures to call in the name of the L-rd, the G-d of the world",

not only "G-d of the world",

but "G-d of the world",

that Divinity and the world become one thing, as it were. As Rashi brings that Abraham said "when He took me from my father's house, the L-rd was the G-d of the heavens and not the G-d of the earth,

because the inhabitants of the world did not recognize Him and His name was not familiar in the land",

and afterwards Abraham brought about a change from one extreme to the other –

"I made Him familiar in the mouths of the creatures" and He became "the G-d of the heavens and the G-d of the earth".

And Abraham did this not in a manner,

that he waited until guests came to him,

but rather he went to seek them,

and to such an extent that when he did not have guests, he was distressed!

From this we have the lesson now regarding establishing a "Beit Chabad" in every place.

And all the more so and how much more so:

If Abraham before the giving of the Torah did this,

and not considering that he had opposition from Avimelech

(as related there) –

all the more so Jews now,

after the giving of the Torah,

and when we have not only no opposition,

but rather help and assistance from the government, etc.

And furthermore, there is a possibility –

that if one is frightened by the title "Beit Chabad"

(or one is ashamed of it,

or it will not be accepted, etc.),

one can call it by the name "eshel" as it is stated in the Written Torah by our father Abraham,

which in content is the same thing!

B) "And Lot sat in the gate of Sodom",

and Rashi explains:

"'sat' is written,

on that day they appointed him as a judge over them".

That is, that even the people of Sodom,

who were "evil and sinful against the L-rd exceedingly",

found it necessary to appoint over themselves a judge –

"make for yourself a master",

and they understood on their own that the judge must be not like them but rather a relative of Abraham,

all the more so when it concerns

(by way of distinction)

Jews after the giving of the Torah!

In the notes of my father on the Zohar of our portion, he focuses on what is related in the Zohar,

that in order to nullify the decree and plague in Kfar Tarsha, they said "arise and return them in complete repentance and they accepted upon themselves that they would never abandon the Torah, and they changed the name of the town and called it 'Mata Mechasya'",

And he explains in the note:

"For a change of name is effective to nullify the decree, etc.,

and they changed from Kefar to Mata and from Tarsha to Machsiya,

for Kefar alludes to gevurot and dinim, etc.,

and Tarsha means a hard stone and rock,

also [indicating] aspects of gevurot and dinim,

and from this side there was a plague, heaven forbid.

And they changed to Mata Machsiya,

Mata is a great city in the aspect of chasadim,

Mata [has] the letters of Emet,

from Emet is drawn forth chesed, etc.,

Machsiya is from the term chas,

and it is that the Holy One, blessed be He, had mercy upon them,

and the plague was withheld from them, etc., and there were no more deaths, etc."

One must understand this matter in the service of man. And as will be explained further.

In today's lesson of Rambam, it discusses the laws of cities of refuge.

We will dwell upon an astonishing matter in this lesson of Rambam –

regarding the revealed aspect

(and also "to correct the opinions") –

as follows.

And one must connect this matter in the Zohar and the matter of the city of refuge

(in the lesson of Rambam)

with the twentieth of Cheshvan,

the birthday of the Rebbe, may his soul be in Eden:

In this Zohar, it discusses the matter of the service of teshuvah

("He arose and returned them with complete teshuvah").

And likewise is the content of the city of refuge for one who kills a person unintentionally –

the matter of teshuvah.

What in the matter of making baalei teshuvah was a particular involvement of the baal hayom huledet:

It is known that the service of the Alter Rebbe was in making baalei teshuvah.

And likewise it is understood regarding the service of our Nesi'im, his successors. And in this there was a particular involvement of the baal hayom huledet, that he did not spare any effort in the endeavors of making baalei teshuvah.

From this one derives a lesson for each and every one,

how far one must endeavor in making baalei teshuvah. And not in such a manner that one goes about it as if it is a great burden to arouse another so that he should arouse a third to do something. Rather, simply to endeavor oneself in this service.

All these matters that were above are also connected and are further strengthened by the matter of "Great is a feast that brings [people] close."

Therefore, those who have provided drink for a "dinner" or another event –

should now go up to the front and themselves say "L'chaim,"

and announce and invite the participants to their gatherings. And afterwards include the participants here,

and especially since it is the day of Shabbat,

share with them a portion of the drink here,

and the rest –

at their gatherings.

May it be His will that this be a close preparation for the time when it will be "entirely drink"

(as the Alter Rebbe said),

in the true and complete redemption through David, King Moshiach,

for at the conclusion of Shabbat is the feast of David, King Moshiach,

of which it is said "my cup is full."

[His Holiness, the Rebbe, may he live for many good days, gave two jugs of drink to the honorable R. D. B. Sh.K. shiyach (for two Chabad Houses in California).

And a jug of drink to:

The honorable R. D.L. shiyach (Melaveh Malkah for the benefit of the building of "Beit Rivkah").

The honorable R. Y.Y.G. shiyach (gathering in Connecticut).

The honorable R. M.K. shiyach (conference of the emissaries in South America).

Y.Y.K. shiyach (Chabad House in Tiberias, the Holy Land).

The honorable R. M.T. shiyach (thanksgiving meal in Sydney, Australia).

And he instructed each of them to announce the time and place of the gathering, etc.].

One is accustomed to hearing complaints from me...

I have another complaint regarding Tzach in the Holy Land,

and this subsequently extended to Tzach here:

In the coming days, the annual convention of Tzach in the Holy Land takes place –

as they are accustomed to do every year.

One should have endeavored to provide drink for this convention,

in order to have in it a participation of the drink from the four cubits,

the four cubits of His Holiness, my father-in-law, the Rebbe, the Nasi of our generation.

Even if none of the convention organizers are present here, they have relatives and friends who are present here. Not one of them felt it necessary to provide drink for this convention.

And although they already received drink for this on Simchat Torah –

that was three weeks ago,

and it is not comparable to receiving drink now,

when it is a new thing,

and in close proximity to the convention itself.

When it comes to sending a telegram to the gathering –

they raise a whole storm:

How is it possible that they did not send him a telegram?!

This proves that he is not considered important and they do not reckon with him, etc., etc.

What in general –

Where has it been heard in previous generations that one should send telegrams?!...

In the six generations of our Rabbis and Nesiim, they did not send any telegrams! Only because in other circles they conduct themselves thus,

they also began to conduct themselves here thus. But the entire matter is a novelty.

When it is speaking, however, about receiving mashkeh from the four cubits –

here there is no one who thought about this,

or even if he thought,

perhaps one must provide a bottle of mashkeh for the gathering of Tzeirei Agudas Chabad in the Holy Land!

Why indeed? One does not suspect anyone that this was intentional,

but from where does it come? It comes from the fact that there is a state of "they turned to Me their back and not their face,"

i.e., as Chassidus explains,

"until like a person standing near his fellow except that he turned his back to him, for this is the ultimate distance."

If one would hold of "they turned to Me,"

in the manner of face and inwardness –

one would surely seek and find a counsel to provide and receive mashkeh for the gathering.

Previously there were mashpiim,

who would arouse regarding a matter that requires correction,

but on this one can no longer rely.

Since, however, in practice no one caught themselves regarding this –

therefore it must come from an arousal from above, so to speak,

just as there is one who came traveling for the twentieth of Cheshvan and returns on Sunday

[whom also they did not make a messenger to provide mashkeh!]

they will make him the messenger to take from there the mashkeh and bring it to the gathering in the Land of Israel. And now –

to announce regarding the gathering –

if he himself does not know the time and place,

let them whisper it into his ear.

[His Holiness the Rebbe Shlita gave a jug of mashkeh to Rabbi D. T. P. Shy"a for the annual gathering of Tzeirei Agudas Chabad in the Holy Land. And he commanded the aforementioned to announce the time and place, etc.

Afterwards, His Holiness the Rebbe Shlita began to sing "And I will empty out for you a blessing"].

The explanation in Rashi –

regarding the matter "and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom"

(at least briefly):

The question in the verse is not only why it says "sat"

(defectively spelled),

but also why it says "in the gate of Sodom." Therefore Rashi also cites "in the gate of Sodom."

And he explains,

that "sat is written,

on that day they appointed him a judge over them":

From "sat" it is proven that on that day there was a special event regarding Lot;

And from "in the gate

(of Sodom)

" it is proven that the special event was that "they appointed him a judge over them" –

as it says "judges and officers you shall place for yourself in all your gates,"

that the place of the judge's sitting is in "your gates." And even though a five-year-old has not yet learned the portion of Shoftim –

he understands, however, by himself,

that the place of the judges' sitting is simply in the gate of the city,

because there is the entrance to the city and the exit from the city,

therefore it is relevant to have a judge in order to know the judgments of the city. Both at the time of entrance to the city

(through the gate) –

to know the judgments of this city,

and at the time of exit from the city –

it is relevant to know the customs and judgments of the city from which he exited,

and then it is also relevant the judgments of the city in order to make an account and pay taxes and debts that he owes in the city

(before he exits from there).

Therefore the place of the judge's sitting was in the gate of the city.

And it is understood to a five-year-old also in his daily life,

that one must have a judge and a special judgment at the beginning of the matter and at the conclusion of the matter –

regarding the matter of "the gate,"

through which one enters into the city

(beginning),

and exits from the city

(conclusion).

And based on this it is understood,

that from what it says in the verse "and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom,"

it is understood that "on that day they appointed him a judge over them,"

whose place

(of the judge)

is "in the gate of Sodom."

With this one will understand another thing:

Further it says that the men of Sodom argued to Lot "this one came to sojourn and he judges judgment." How does Lot indeed have such audacity? This is because "on that day they appointed him a judge over them." Therefore he had "and he judges judgment."

The explanation in Rashi on the verse "and he planted an eshel":

Rashi is perplexed: what is the significance of this, that it was "and he planted an eshel in Beersheba"?

What is the novelty in that Abraham planted a tree in Beersheba,

an inhabited place where there are many trees?

[If the continuation of the verse "and he called there in the name of the Lord, the Eternal God" is understandable as a novelty,

but what is the novelty in "and he planted an eshel in Beersheba"?].

Therefore, Rashi indeed does not explain that "eshel" here means a tree

(as in I Samuel),

because then the novelty in it would not be understood.

Rather, he must seek an interpretation of "eshel" that yields a novel matter. Therefore, he brings the interpretations of Rav and Shmuel,

"one said an orchard to bring from it fruits for the guests at the meal,

and one said an inn for lodging, and in it all kinds of fruits." Which makes understandable the novelty of Abraham with "and he planted an eshel in Beersheba,"

and also –

how through this it was "and he called there in the name of the Lord, the Eternal God."

Based on this, another thing is understood:

After the second interpretation of "and he planted an eshel"

("an inn for lodging"),

Rashi concludes:

"and we find the expression of planting regarding tents, as it is said 'and he planted the tent of his palace'." The question arises:

Why does Rashi not emphasize after the first interpretation

("an orchard")

that the advantage of this interpretation over the second interpretation

("an inn for lodging")

is –

because then the expression "and he planted" fits simply? The explanation in this is:

Rashi is not perplexed why it says here "and he planted"

(because then he would have explained simply that "eshel" means a tree),

rather it is what constitutes the novelty of "and he planted an eshel." And after this he brings two interpretations,

"an orchard" and "an inn for lodging,"

and incidentally he explains the expression "and he planted" according to the second interpretation.

The explanation in the service of God of this matter in the notes on the Zohar –

will be understood by prefacing the statement of the great ones of Chassidus

(as brought by His Holiness, my father-in-law, the Rebbe)

that the Alter Rebbe revived the dead,

because the Torah of Chassidus Chabad

(which the Alter Rebbe founded)

makes understandable Divinity in the Chabad of the soul,

down to the human and natural intellect,

which is the matter of "resurrection of the dead" in spirituality

["and your dew is a dew of reviving the dead" –

because "a dead person is cold,

there is no such cold thing as natural intellect and human intellect,

and when the natural intellect comprehends a Divine perception and the intellectual emotions become affected and moved by this intellectual delight,

this is the true resurrection of the dead".

And especially this is accomplished through the service of prayer –

which brings the comprehension of the mind

(the contemplation in prayer – intellect)

into the feeling of the heart,

love and fear,

until the heart rules over the mind

(as a virtue),

from the aspect of will and emotions that are above intellect,

and this accomplishes "resurrection of the dead" –

that one revives the coldness

(death)

of the intellect.

And based on this, one will understand the matter in service, which is the explanation in the notes on the Zohar:

The plague in the village of Trasha pertains to the minds

(from the side of judgment),

which is a matter of death

(coldness).

And the rectification for this is –

"and they changed the name of the city and called it Mata Mechasya,"

"they changed from a village to a city and from Trasha to Mechasya,"

which "Mata Mechasya" pertains to the service of prayer,

the service of the emotions,

which is "reviving the dead" and draws down life

("and there were no more dead").

And the explanation in this is understood from what the father explains:

"because 'village' alludes to gevurot and judgments etc.,

and 'Trasha' means a stone and hard rock,

also the aspect of gevurot and judgments,

and from this side there was a plague, may it not befall us.

And they changed it to Mata Mechasya,

'Mata' is a great city in the aspect of chassadim,

'Mata' is the letters of 'Emet' (truth),

from truth life is drawn etc.,

'Mechasya' is from the term 'Chas' (mercy),

and it is that the Holy One, blessed be He, had mercy upon them,

and the plague was withheld from them etc., and there were no more dead etc.":

The minds are connected with tzimtzumim and gevurot

("village") –

intellect and minds measure every thing,

and place every thing in its place. This is a great tzimtzum. And from the side of intellect

(from the side of judgment)

the heart also becomes a "heart of stone"

("Trasha means a stone and hard rock"),

i.e., the intellect does not descend into a feeling in the heart of love and fear,

rather the heart remains a "heart of stone."

Sometimes it is indeed explained that intellect relative to emotions is a matter of expansion;

but in certain matters it is a matter of contraction

(which measures everything),

and especially relative to will and emotions that are above intellect.

But attributes

(that are above intellect)

are aspects of kindnesses and expansion –

"Mata is a great city in the aspect of kindnesses,"

and as explained in various places

(in the distinction between Isaiah, who is like a city dweller relative to Ezekiel, who is like a villager, that a city relative to a village is a matter of greatness and breadth [and as our Sages said, "When is He great? When He is in the city of our God"]).

And additionally, "Mata is the letters of Emet (truth),"

and especially "Mata Mechasya,"

"from the word 'chas' (mercy),"

an aspect of compassion,

which are without limit.

And in service –

this refers to the service of prayer,

which transforms "Kfar Tarsha" into "Mata Mechasya,"

so that intellectual comprehension should descend into feeling of the heart,

and through this one "revives the dead,"

one revives the coldness of the intellect,

and the plague is withheld from them, etc., and there were no more dead, etc."

The concept in the Rambam

(at least briefly):

In today's lesson, the Rambam writes, "The exile never leaves his city of refuge,

and even for a matter of a mitzvah or for testimony, whether monetary testimony or capital testimony,

and even to save a life through his testimony or to save [someone] from the hand of an idolater, etc.,

even if all of Israel needs his salvation, like Yoav ben Tzeruyah, he never leaves there until the death of the High Priest,

and if he leaves, he permits himself to be put to death, as we have explained."

One must understand –

an astonishing thing:

There is, after all, the principle that saving a life overrides the entire Torah.

All the more so saving the life of "all of Israel." So how is it,

that regarding one who kills a person unintentionally, an exception is made from all the rest of the entire Torah –

that "the exile does not leave his city of refuge" even not for saving a life,

"to save a life,"

even not when "all of Israel needs his salvation"?!

Thus the question is that "if he leaves, he permits himself to be put to death" –

this is only "he permits himself to be put to death,"

but it is still uncertain whether the blood redeemer will find him,

but regarding saving Israel

(or all of Israel)

through him, this is certain,

should he not have been required to sacrifice himself

(in a case of uncertain danger to life)

in order to save another

(in a case of certain danger to life).

Not only according to the opinions that self-sacrifice applies to all mitzvot,

but even according to the view of the Rambam that self-sacrifice is only for the three mitzvot of "be killed and do not transgress"

(idolatry,

forbidden sexual relations, and murder) –

here, after all, the discussion concerns danger to life

(murder)

certainly,

and regarding himself it is only uncertain –

should he not have sacrificed himself

(in a case of uncertain danger to life)

and left his city of refuge in order to save another

(in a case of certain danger to life),

and all the more so when "all of Israel needs his salvation,"

like Yoav ben Tzeruyah,

who could have saved all of Israel (since the danger regarding himself was not from the opponents but from the blood redeemer),

should he not, ostensibly, have sacrificed himself

(in a case of uncertain danger to life)

in order to save all of Israel

(in a case of certain danger to life)?!

And for now, I have not found an explanation for this.

And one may say the explanation:

In halachah, there is the category of a "person who is [considered] killed."

That is, for example:

One who kills a tereifah is exempt

(and that one who kills a [viable] person is executed for it –

is because we follow the majority, that they are not presumed to be tereifah).

Or one whose verdict of death has been finalized, one is not executed for killing him,

"for anyone whose verdict has been finalized is considered as dead and has no [protected] blood."

This is also the category of one who kills a person unintentionally who leaves his city of refuge –

that "he has no [protected] blood,"

and the blood redeemer may kill him,

"he is like one who kills a dead person who has no [protected] blood,"

and therefore "if any person killed him, they are not liable for him, as it is said, 'he has no [protected] blood.'"

Based on this, one may say,

that since the exile

(who left his city of refuge)

is a "person who is [considered] killed"

(who has no [protected] blood),

that is, that according to the Torah he is a non-entity –

he does not have

(according to the Torah)

the power to save another Jew,

because one who is a non-entity cannot save another,

for that one specifically needs an entity.

Therefore, the law is that "the exile never leaves his city of refuge, etc., and even to save a life through his testimony or to save from the hand of an idolater, etc.,

even if all of Israel needs his salvation, like Yoav ben Tzeruyah, he never leaves there until the death of the High Priest" –

because as soon as he leaves his city of refuge

("he permits himself to be put to death")

he ceases to be an entity

(according to the Torah),

a "person who is [considered] killed,"

and consequently he does not have the power

(of the Torah)

to save another.

And for now, I have not found a better explanation;

and on the other hand –

I [do] not [see] the difficulty in this explanation.

May it be His will that then we will already come to the time of the days of Mashiach when there will be the perfection of the rectification of the cities of refuge,

which then will be added after the three cities of refuge

(to the six that preceded them),

as it is stated "And you shall add for yourself three more cities to these three"

(as the Rambam writes in the measurements of these days).

And the question regarding this is known:

In the future to come it will be "And the spirit of impurity I will remove from the land",

including also the matter of "one who kills a soul

(even)

unintentionally" –

then why will one then need to come to cities of refuge at all,

and all the more so to three more cities of refuge?!

And as was discussed at length previously, the explanation of the writings of the Ariza"l,

that this is in order to rectify the seed of Kayin etc.;

but one also needs to have an explanation according to the revealed aspect in a simple manner.

There was previously discussed the explanation regarding this:

In the days of Mashiach the law of the four death penalties by the court will be reinstated

(which is not present during the time of exile).

Consequently there will then be a great multitude of Jews

(throughout all the generations during the time of exile)

who will be judged to flee to a city of refuge. Therefore they will then need more cities of refuge –

nine cities of refuge.

Until the time comes when all undesirable matters will be transformed into holiness –

intentional sins into merits,

"night will shine like day",

until then in the future to come the tzimtzum will not be nullified,

rather the tzimtzum itself will shine,

as it is stated in Chassidus.

[The Rebbe Shlit"a smiled,

and said:]

It is indeed stated thus in Chassidus –

that the tzimtzum itself will shine in the future to come –

but as has been discussed many times,

one merely repeats words and does not delve into the explanation of the matters:

How is it possible to say,

that the tzimtzum will not be nullified, rather the tzimtzum itself will shine –

this is a contradiction from within and without:

If it is tzimtzum then it is not light,

and if it is light then it is not tzimtzum!

Granted, regarding that which is said that darkness itself will shine –

one can still explain with a "limping" resolution:

It is known the two opinions regarding the matter of darkness,

whether it is the absence of light,

or an entity in and of itself.

And it is explained in Chassidus that "the second opinion is not an opinion that disputes the first opinion etc., rather it adds upon it",

i.e., both are true

(not only "these and those are the words of the living G-d",

rather true in actuality):

Even according to the opinion that darkness is an entity, there is a level in darkness that is only the absence of light. As is simple to understand:

When one removes light from a certain place –

it is simple to understand that even if the Almighty did not create there a separate entity of darkness,

there is also no light there,

only a state of absence of light. Afterwards there is another level in darkness where it is

(not merely the absence of light, rather)

an entity in and of itself that was created by the Holy One, blessed be He, just as the entity of light was created –

as per "And He called the darkness".

Based on this one can explain the meaning of darkness itself will shine –

that in the future to come the Almighty will make that the entity which He previously created as darkness should now be light.

But the matter of tzimtzum is the opposite of light,

if it is tzimtzum then it is not light.

And even though one has no explanation for this –

one repeats the words. True,

it is indeed stated thus in Chassidus,

from one Rebbe,

from a second Rebbe –

but to understand,

one does not understand it explicitly!

He is a chassid who has studied Chassidus –

he wants to show that one can have a novel idea. Consequently one repeats the novel idea that tzimtzum itself will shine:

that in the future to come light will shine and there will not be any tzimtzum –

this is also known to misnagdim and simpletons;

a chassid, however, knows the novel idea –

that in the future to come the tzimtzum itself will shine!

But you repeat words that you do not understand.

If one asks him how the reality will be –

he must say the truth that it is stated that tzimtzum itself will shine;

when one asks him, however, whether he understands this –

he must further say the truth,

that he does not understand it explicitly.

Why is this mentioned? Because such is the conduct regarding several matters:

One repeats words without delving into the explicit meaning and explanation of the matters.

For example:

At the farbrengen before this, they spoke about the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehoshua regarding the time of the creation of the world,

whether "in Tishrei the world was created" or "in Nisan the world was created."

Others came to explain,

how according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua

(that in Nisan the world was created)

the practices and prayers and liturgical poems of Rosh Hashanah

(Rosh Chodesh Tishrei) are consistent.

The question is, however,

(as discussed at length) –

why do we not find, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that on Rosh Chodesh Nisan one should make a remembrance of the creation of the world and the creation of Adam the first and the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, etc.?

Someone wrote an answer in one of the journals –

and the "editorial board" allowed it to pass –

that the remembrance of the creation of the world on Rosh Chodesh Nisan is through the fact that we begin from then to say the "Nesi'im",

and this

(Rosh Chodesh Nisan)

is the first day of the offering of the Nesi'im,

of which "each day that took its portion took ten crowns",

including the matter of "first of the work of creation."

The "answer" is not only untenable,

but it is entirely not within the bounds of the matter:

I never would have estimated that someone would say,

that the enactment of saying the Nesi'im from Rosh Chodesh Nisan until the twelfth of Nisan after the morning prayer is from...

Rabbi Yehoshua! One knows who enacted it –

but it is understood and simple that this is not from Rabbi Yehoshua!

Consequently,

what connection does the enactment of saying the Nesi'im have with making a remembrance in the time of Rabbi Yehoshua for the creation of the world on Rosh Chodesh Nisan?

[In addition to the fact that it has no place to say that the remembrance of the creation of the world according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua is the saying of the Nasi –

entirely out of proportion to the remembrance of the creation of the world according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar through the recitation of the verses of Kingships, Remembrances, and Shofarot,

the order of the service, etc.!.]

And furthermore, and this is also essential:

"First day of the work of creation"

(one of the ten crowns taken on Rosh Chodesh Nisan)

means Sunday,

the first day of the week,

not the day of the creation of Adam the first

(which was on the sixth day of the work of creation)!

And may it be His will that from the portion "And Hashem appeared to him" –

for which the birthday celebrant yearned and wept,

why the Supreme One does not reveal Himself to him,

and from this there is a lesson regarding all those about whom it is written "a youth of Israel and I loved him" –

they will come to the revelation of Divinity speedily in our days,

"and the glory of Hashem shall be revealed, and all flesh together shall see that the mouth of Hashem has spoken,"

and "awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust,"

and among them –

the birthday celebrant and his son who fills his place,

His Holiness, my master, my father, the Rebbe,

together with all the Rebbes,

and together with "one does not call 'forefathers' except the three,"

speedily, in our very days.

His Holiness, the Rebbe, may he live for many good days, Amen, hinted to the emissary, may he live, to play the melody "May it be His will, etc., that the Holy Temple be built, etc."

Afterward he said:

Those who need to recite the after-blessing will certainly recite the after-blessing.

The notes of what was discussed in the years before this on Shabbat of the portion of Vayera with the same calendar dates were printed

(the eighth of MarCheshvan),

in the year 5737,

5743, and similar.

One can study there and extract further explanations and instructions, and in addition to what was discussed previously.

And the main point –

that they should effect their action and bring it down into actuality. And may one hear good tidings,

and in a manner of increasing and going and light.